shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Maybe we are at cross purposes. I’m not saying the statement is biased. I’m saying that if you only talk to one side you will be biased whether you like it or not. Currently they’ve only spoken to one side.
Honestly mate, I fail to see where there's any bias. As it said in the opening posts from Mark. Pete has met with Wasps, and future meetings are expected.
Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk
Not just that things are being done but they are being done openly.Can’t say how successful this will be and I’m sure there are as many opinions as there are posters but for me the most important thing is that something is being done...this forum has had an input at the table and hopefully that will continue. Thanks to those who took the initiative and got something achieved while most just sit around moaning.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.
But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.
The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.
The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.
In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?
Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.
This is the difference, you and Pete don't have any other motives than CCFC.
You don't want anything out of it, you don't want a seat at the board, you don't have to try and please any other parties and you don't have to give a shit what you do and don't say.
I wouldn't worry about it, you can tell it is pushing the right buttons from that reaction.
As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.
But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.
The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.
The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.
In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?
Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.
Did you actually read it? I have often disagreed with Pete over the years, I have bickered with them about stuff but to say he is going to be biased is nonsense. I remember asking him what protesting at the Ricoh would achieve when he did it.
Pete has actually hammered SISU, local councillors and Wasps from what I can see, it isn't just solely SISU.
Isn't it obvious why people reply to you, maybe it's intentional to get away from the point?
Maybe we are at cross purposes. I’m not saying the statement is biased. I’m saying that if you only talk to one side you will be biased whether you like it or not. Currently they’ve only spoken to one side.
The trust actively weaponised themselves against the club when it became a political football for the council - prior to that it had many many people attend meetings. It was ruined at that point
Have you even read all of it? You are making yourself look silly now.
As I said, Pete has spoken to ALL sides.
Completely agree.
How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?
Completely agree.
How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?
Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example?
I couldn’t give a fuck how they view it to be honest - if wasps viewed it positively I’d be doing something wrong
Completely agree.
How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?
As I say fair play for going and the fact you’ve come away exactly how the Trust have with Wasps kinda proves my point about it not being evil conspiracies but rather the realities of trying to get answers and maintain relationships.
But there are clear questions you haven’t asked.
The big one being Wasps are clearly asking for a Sisu to contact the ECJ and ask for the case to be forgotten. You accepted the non answer about whether this would work but didn’t ask why they don’t try and call Wasps bluff if that’s the case.
The forum was a stadium forum Sandra Garlick set up ages ago with far more detail about the new ground than we have now. Where did it go? Why was it stopped? Likely it was just PR bullshit and if so what’s different this time? You can’t just accept “oh yes we want a stadium” on face value.
In terms of timescales again you didn’t ask, you assumed based on a five year deal but what are the deadlines? If we haven’t found land in the next three years what then? Isn’t this just more kicking it into the long grass while we wait for the state aid case? Essentially we are being told the same thing we have for six years with even less evidence it’s actually happening and are expected to just take this as gospel?
Like I say I get it. You don’t want to annoy them now you’ve got access. That’s to be expected and that’s what’s happened on the other wise with the Trust. The whole situation was so foreseeable and frustrating.
And many on the Trust don’t give a fuck what Joy thinks. How’s that working out. Come on you can’t be so dense as to not see the parallels here?
And many on the Trust don’t give a fuck what Joy thinks. How’s that working out. Come on you can’t be so dense as to not see the parallels here?
There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for himNot much new news really. Did you ask for a likely timescale on the stadium? They’ve had six years is there anything to indicate the next six will be any different? I swear we were “down to three sites” years ago and now it’s up to six. Any ideas on how it’ll be funded or who will own it? What happened to it last time with the fans forum and everything?
Did you ask about why they won’t request the case is forgotten even if it’s pointless? Did you ask about future legal cases or appeals? Any more details on the indemnity?
Fair play for getting a meeting but seems a bit of a wasted opportunity to just turn up and say “yes yes everything’s lovely aren’t the team doing well” and not actually ask them any questions. Seems just like what many on here slate the Trust for doing with the other actors. Turn up, round of applause, no further forward.
THE CASE CANT BE FORGOTTEN.
Why are you the only person on here who doesn't get that?
The European case is not about the Wasps, it's about the Council and once a complaint is made it will always be actioned. The outcome of the case may have an impact on the lease of the Ricoh and therefore a financial impact for the Wasps. This is what they want to indemnify - any costs the occur as a result of this or any other action will be borne by CCFC. There is no way that anyone could sign that.Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example? Where’s the thread on his meetings with Wasps maybe I missed it and that’s why I’m “looking silly”. All I can see in this having read through three time’s now is him saying he’s met with Nick Eastwood and he’d be happy to arrange a meeting withJoy and Derek. Nothing about “Wasps say X and you say Y, who is right”.
THE. ITLL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF WE ASK!
Fucks sake mate. I can’t make it any simpler.
Let’s say I tell you I’ll give you a million pounds if you ask Holly Willoughby for a BJ. You refuse because she’s definitely going to say no. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t you ask anyway knowing it won’t happen and you get a million quid? That’s what calling someone’s bluff is.
Jesus. You are so obsessed with the other side in this you’re happy for Sisu to piss on you and tell you it’s raining and then go out and scream at anyone who says it isn’t.
There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for him
I think we feel it’s very pro ccfc not sisu
I don’t think I’ve ever thought a new stadium was realistic I now think it is. We didn’t ask about timescales but they are very excited about a particular site (3 weeks comes to mind)
Not sure about funding, ccfc will take all the funds needed to compete. Who knows who will own it. We could and hope to ask more about this. For me this is an ongoing conversation with the immediate priority of getting Coventry back to Coventry.
I think it’s clear we did ask and the answer was there’s no point as the eu will follow up if there’s a case to answer.
the legals and indemnity are part of the nda paragraph
No applause but meeting was respectful and polite as it should be
Next steps are for Joy to talk to Derek and get back to Coventry then we can argue over new stadium
thanks for staying on here and articulating you’re views so well
Great. So what did he ask Wasps about the case being forgotten for example? Where’s the thread on his meetings with Wasps maybe I missed it and that’s why I’m “looking silly”. All I can see in this having read through three time’s now is him saying he’s met with Nick Eastwood and he’d be happy to arrange a meeting withJoy and Derek. Nothing about “Wasps say X and you say Y, who is right”.
THE. ITLL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF WE ASK!
Fucks sake mate. I can’t make it any simpler.
Let’s say I tell you I’ll give you a million pounds if you ask Holly Willoughby for a BJ. You refuse because she’s definitely going to say no. Does that make sense? Wouldn’t you ask anyway knowing it won’t happen and you get a million quid? That’s what calling someone’s bluff is.
Jesus. You are so obsessed with the other side in this you’re happy for Sisu to piss on you and tell you it’s raining and then go out and scream at anyone who says it isn’t.
I think better questions would be
"why are WASPs so bothered by the EU complaint?" which is not against them
"what are they expecting SISU et al to idemnify unless they have a problem?"
"what indemnities exist between them and CCC?"
Can you link me to where Wasps have said they want SISU to ask for it to be dropped? Why would they want that if they know it can't? Why would you want to pay me to ask her for a BJ when you know it is never going to happen?
As for obsessed, you may want to have a lie down because you are becoming embarrassing. You absolutely hate this because it makes the Trust look bad and one sided, why? You were one of a handful who didn't want that statement to be put out too.
Who cares what they thinkCompletely agree.
How do you think Wasps and CCC view yours and Nicks behaviour over the last few years?
There’s some good challenge in there and I am happy to answer for me and allow mark to answer for him
I think we feel it’s very pro ccfc not sisu
I don’t think I’ve ever thought a new stadium was realistic I now think it is. We didn’t ask about timescales but they are very excited about a particular site (3 weeks comes to mind)
Not sure about funding, ccfc will take all the funds needed to compete. Who knows who will own it. We could and hope to ask more about this. For me this is an ongoing conversation with the immediate priority of getting Coventry back to Coventry.
I think it’s clear we did ask and the answer was there’s no point as the eu will follow up if there’s a case to answer.
the legals and indemnity are part of the nda paragraph
No applause but meeting was respectful and polite as it should be
Next steps are for Joy to talk to Derek and get back to Coventry then we can argue over new stadium
thanks for staying on here and articulating you’re views so well
You only read what you want. You literally quoted a post of mine where I say I agree that the trust are biased. I posted the same in at least two other posts and yet you manage to come out with “you’re just angry it makes the trust look biased”. At times you are so dense I’m amazed you don’t collapse in on yourself.
And a link? Really? We’ve heard it from CJ. We’ve heard it from Linnell. That’s the unofficial PR line coming back on the legals that they can’t talk about publicly because of the NDA remember. You really are grasping.
I suspect they won’t do it because they think it will do something. Just like I suspect they won’t commit to either a ground or stopping future legals. Just like I suspect we are out of Cov or at best in a shit Ricoh deal for many years to come.
I've already answered, I'm not sure how to make it clear. They feel there's a case to be answered, so they wouldn't withdraw anyway. But it can't be withdrawn, so it's a moot point. You may not like the answer, but it was asked.
I've already answered, I'm not sure how to make it clear. They feel there's a case to be answered, so they wouldn't withdraw anyway. But it can't be withdrawn, so it's a moot point. You may not like the answer, but it was asked.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?